Module 6 – Colonization of Black People

What was the colonization movement?  Was it in the best interest of black people; were black people for or against colonization? 

Initially, I thought that ‘Colonization’ referred to the abolition and integration of blacks into American society.  In truth it was the abolition of slavery, by means of removing freed slaves out of America to other countries such as Africa, the Caribbean or Central America.  According to Foner, “colonization rested on the premise that America is fundamentally a white society (p. 421).”  Many white people saw it as a way to end slavery and they didn’t believe that black people could ever overcome the racial barrier that existed in the US and be fully integrated as equals.  While other’s thought that the removal of slaves from the presence of slave owners gave them the ability to ease their minds towards the evils that they committed towards black people.  

Whilst some black people looked at departing as an opportunity to return to their home lands, a place to spread their Christianity to other African’s, a place of freedom, equality and ability to enjoy rights denied to them in America.  One might think that this was a great opportunity for black people to free themselves from bondage in the U.S.  However, blacks were divided on this issue and a majority of black people were not in favor of colonization.  For many they were not natives to these ‘homelands’ and a return would be to a place of unfamiliarity and a life they were not accustomed.  Additionally, they were not making this choice by freewill, but instead they were being forced into the decision by white men.  Many black people considered themselves American’s and wanted to stay and fight for their rights of freedom and equality that were enjoyed by whites.  A black abolitionist named David Walker when addressing the white readers wrote, “tell us no more about colonization for America is as much our country as it is yours.” (Foner p. 422)

Source:

Foner, Eric. Give Me Liberty!  An American History. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc 2009

Module 5 A Hero - The War of 1812

Would you consider a person who fought for the good of the people but didn’t win the war a ‘hero’?  What characteristics or traits sway your decision one way or the other?  Although, I believe each of us decides who and why we consider someone a hero, it maddens me to read about the evils of individuals throughout or history titled as ‘hero’s’ when they had no humanity towards others. 

Zinn for example mentions that Jackson “became a hero of the War of 1812”.  But the comment right before this describes Jackson as “a land speculator, merchant, slave trader, and the most aggressive enemy of the Indians in early American history” (p. 98).  Another comment of Jackson states he was a national hero in a battle in 1814, because he killed so many Creeks with few casualties.  However, this battle was won because of Cherokees support (p. 99).  What about Tecumseh, why is he not mentioned as a ‘hero’?  All Zinn states is, “Tecumseh, a Shawnee chief and noted orator, tried to united the Indians against the white invasion” (p.98).  Zinns choice of words “tried” even makes it appear as though Tecumseh was unsuccessful in his attempt, but this is far from the truth.

Let me share a bit about Tecumseh he was an Indian warrior who played a major role in the fight to protect Indian lands.  He was known as a visionary, military expert, loved and respected even by his enemy and remembered as one of the greatest Indian leaders.  He was born during 1768 the same year as the important treaty of Fort Stanwix between the North American Indians and British Empire for land.  Land issues would continue to shape his entire life right up until his death where he was in a battle to protect the lands of his people during the War of 1812.

As a leader Tecumseh was known for bringing out the best in people and possessed a natural ability to bring people of tribal differences and language together to unite as one.  He stayed true to his convictions and did not take part nor sign the Treaty of Greenville in 1795, which ceased land occupied by Indians to the United Stated.

Tecumseh would later assist the British commander Sir Issac Brock during the Battle of Detroit which is known as one of the most embarrassing attacks on the US.  Tecumseh knew they were outnumbered and he tricked the Americans into thinking they had a larger army by having his warriors running by in a repeating circle.  Detroit surrendered without a shot fired.  Sir Issac Brock was a supporter of the Indians and even stated that Tecumseh was the “greatest military leader of all times” (PBS, We Shall Remain: Tecumseh’s Vision).  Unfortunately, Brock was killed in a battle and the new general was only interested in protecting Canada and withdrew its troops.  Tecumseh responded to this by continuing the battle of Indian land during the War of 1812 where he was killed and mutilated beyond recognition by the Americans.    

These are just brief examples of Tecumseh’s life and upon further study, I’m sure you’d agree that Tecumseh lived a life of honor and purpose with concern for all American Indians.  A ‘hero’ indeed!    

Sources:

PBS video, We Shall Remain: Tecumseh’s Vision; http://video.pbs.org/video/1097943308/

Zinn, Howard. A People’s History of the United States. New York: The New Press, 2003

Module 4 - Revolutionary Control by the Elite

What were the methods of control used by the Revolutionary elite to control disobedient and rebellious colonists?  Were the elite successful in their efforts?

In Howard Zinn’s book, A People’s History of the United States he mentions that although various groups of peoples were incensed against the British, the general enthusiasm for the war was not strong (p. 62).  Later he states that “John Adams had estimated a third opposed, a third in support, a third neutral” (p. 62).  So who was interested in severing their ties from Britain?  In my opinion, those who had the most to gain the elite, wealthy, white men. 

So how did the ‘elite’ get the opposed and neutral parties to join their forces against the British army and keep a balance of control over the rebellious colonists?  They did this by preying on the needs of the disadvantaged, providing illusions of adventure, power, money, status, advancement, possibilities of freedom and the belief that they were fighting for a common good.  Or as one documented instance notes the natural competition of seeing a neighbor no better than yourself joining the Revolution as a person of rank and not just a private soldier made others jump in and join the cause (Zinn 62). 

However, they still had to control the militia and tread carefully because of underlying issues between the rich and the poor which resurfaced as small mutinies throughout the war.  George Washington handled these situations using tactics of concessions such as discharge and furloughs for some and brutality for others.  During one such instance Washington set “an example” where the three ringleaders of the mutiny were immediately tried, one was pardoned and two were shot by firing squads made up of their friends, who wept as they pulled the triggers (Zinn 64).  This to me demonstrates just how much power and control the ‘elite’ had over the people.

I don’t believe the ‘elite’ were forward thinking strategists, but their ability to play on the emotional needs of the people both positive and negative was well utilized to further their efforts and maintain control to their advantage.

The strategy of playing off of the emotional needs of people still exists today.  For example Corporate America being in a position of having a large pool of unemployed people desperate for work they take advantage and sometime mistreat their current work force.  Some companies treat people as dispensable and employees put up with more crap because it is the worse of two evils during this period of instability and high unemployment. 

Source:

Zinn, Howard. A People’s History of the United States. New York: The New Press, 2003

Module 3 - Bacon's Rebellion

What were the motives behind Bacon’s Rebellion of 1676?  Was it really just a conflict within the Virginia elite regarding injustices of the Berkeley regime (Foner 100); a personal struggle between Bacon and Berkeley fighting for control and power; or as Zinn mentions Bacon’s enthusiasm to kill the Indians (34). 

The two men at the heart of the Rebellion are Governor William Berkeley of Virginia and Nathaniel Bacon.  Foner describes Governor Berkeley as a corrupt individual supported by his inner circle of the wealthiest tobacco planters (99).  The Library of Virginia website describes Berkeley as an advocate of economical diversity, encouraging governmental and legislative responsibility and teacher of peaceful living through tolerance to differences (1).  These are two very different views of an individual at the center of Bacon’s Rebellion.  Then you also have Bacon himself the leader of the rebellion described by Foner as a wealthy and ambitious planter (100).   A few things that both Zinn and Foner never mention are the vast age differences between Berkeley and Bacon, the fact that they were cousins by marriage, or that Berkeley gave the young Bacon a substantial land grant and a seat on the council upon his arrival to Virginia.  

During this time in the 1670s Virginia people were starting to feel the crunch of less available land, lower tobacco prices yet higher taxes, and poverty at levels similar to their past experience in England.  Additionally, Governor Berkeley restricted the voting right to only land owning men and preserved the land areas reserved for Indians (Foner 99).  In my opinion these issues angered the people of Virginia making it easy for Bacon to recruit and gain their trust and support to start the rebellion in which they burned down Jamestown.  Initially, I thought these injustices to the people were at the heart of the rebellion and that Bacon was protesting for the greater good of the Virginians.

Berkeley wasn’t without fault, however; upon further research I’ve come to the conclusion that Bacon main motive was his strong hatred and zeal to kill all Indians.  Bacon was close minded towards his cousin Berkeley’s reasoning of why they shouldn’t fight friendly Indians and why he protected pieces of land for the Indians.  Bacon said, "[We must defend ourselves] against all Indians in general, for that they were all Enemies." (2)

I choose this drawing of Bacon’s Rebellion because I felt like it depicted several aspects of the rebellion.  In the background it looks like smoke and buildings, possibly Jamestown burning down.  I also noticed a drummer so the people are possibly marching for Bacon’s release.  And finally to me it represented a varied group of individuals uniting together towards a common purpose.

RESOURCES:

Books

Zinn, Howard. A People’s History of the United States. New York: The New Press, 2003

Foner, Eric. Give Me Liberty! An American History. W.W. Norton & Company LTD.,2009

Image

http://www.superstock.com/stock-photos-images/475-2397

Internet

(1) http://www.lva.virginia.gov/exhibits/political/william_berkeley.htm

(2)   http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1p274.html
http://www.nps.gov/jame/historyculture/bacons-rebellion.htm

Zinn Blog Module 2

Blissful ignorance can only get you so far and this phase has started to end for me.  Not being a history buff or into historical events in general I’ve played the quite role silently listening, but not adding a perspective or any value to conversations that revolve around anything historical.  These techniques have aided me well in preserving myself from utter embarrassment due to my lack of knowledge, but ultimately hindered my growth, insight and perspective of the world. 

My memory does not serve me well and my recollection of Christopher Columbus was he sailed the ocean blue in 1942 and discovered America; a ‘Hero’ to be celebrated and honored with a day of remembrance. 

The more I read the more my perspective has evolved from thinking of Christopher Columbus as a Hero and more of a Villain.  In the readings written by Howard Zinn it describes Arawak men and women going into the waters to greet Christopher Columbus and giving the sailors a variety of gifts, painting a picture of peaceful people not an enemy to destroy (3).  Columbus’s journal log further describes this first encounter:  “They.…brought us parrots and balls of cotton and spear and many other things, willingly traded everything they owned.…They did not bear arms….They would make fine servants….With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want (Zinn 3).”  It seems pretty clear that Christopher Columbus was not a victor for he did not encounter an enemy, but rather naïve innocent people that he could dominate, exploit, kill, enslave and utilize for his own gain.  Knowing this would you be inclined to attend a Columbus Day celebration or would you join in the protest parades held on Columbus Day to support others who feel victimized by Columbus’s cruelty to Native American?

Personally, I would join the protest parades and I’d like to believe that others would as well if they knew of the horrific acts of Christopher Columbus toward Native Americans.  So surely there must be something positive about Columbus that we are truly celebrating.  Could it be the achievements of attaining his goal?  Specifically, he was on a quest to find gold and spices on a westerly route to Asia.  Columbus accidentally landed in the Americas; never making it to Asia or finding gold and spices and relied on fabrication to get a second voyage funded this time with a quest of slaves and gold.  During the second voyage he still didn’t find the fields of gold he envisioned.  Knowing that he couldn’t go back without repayment he captured the native people and shipped them to Spain to sell as slaves as repayment for his debts (Zinn 6). 

So by luck it seems Columbus landed in America.  Are we celebrating his ‘luck’?  Or is it our patriotism and past teachings starting as a child that have lead us to believe he was a great and honorable man worthy of celebration. 

REFERENCES:

BOOKS

Zinn, Howard.  A People’s History of the United States. New York: The New Press, 2003

INTERNET

Introduction

Hi fellow classmates,

My name is Kristie.  A bit about myself; I love dogs and you can find me every Friday after work at ARF (Tony La Russa's Animal Rescue Foundation) in Walnut Creek where I've been an active volunteer for the past 6 years.  As a child my parents owned a petshop so I grew up with pets, specifically dogs and fish.  My current dogs Parsnip and Ginger were both adopted through ARF and are a great source of joy in my life.

Jeff (my husband) and I love to travel and if I had my way or should I say unlimited funds, I'd quit my job and travel the world.  Our most recent trip was an adventure vacation to the beautiful country of New Zealand.

Cheers to an interesting summer of History!

Kristie